Tag Archives: nationhood

Immigration to the First World is the most important political issue. It remains very high, for example, net UK immigration to June 2018 (the most up to date figures) shows net immigration to be 273,000. That is worrying enough but it does not tell anything like the full immigration story because 625,000 was the total number of immigrants, i.e., the number people who actually came to live here, the vast majority of whom were foreigners rather than British people returning after a period living abroad. This means the UK is undergoing a radical and rapid. transformation of the nature of its population if this scale of replacement of native British people continues. If it does 6 million or so immigrants would arrive in the UK over the next ten years.

What is happening to the UK is being replicated throughout the West. The rise of so-called populist movements (in reality simply native populations in the West acting out of desperation as they see their countries being threatened by immigrants ) arise from the scale of migration to the First World. As yet, with a few exceptions such a Hungary building a fence, little has been done by Western Governments, especially those of the largest countries, to stop or even severely reduce the flow of migrants from the third world.

What needs to be done is (1) change the public language about mass immigration to the West and identify it for what it is, invasion, and d(2) disabuse immigrants of the idea that they have any right to migrate to the West.

Brexit

The behaviour of the Remainers over the past year has been both sinister and contemptible. However, it was not unexpected, because once the Remainer Theresa May became PM and appointed a majority Remainer Cabinet the writing was on the wall, namely, that Remainers would do everything they could to subvert the referendum vote to leave the EU.

May’s demeanour has been much commented upon because despite engaging in persistent and obvious lying she has remained surreally calm. This is easily explained, she is achieving precisely what she set out to do, namely, sabotage Brexit.

May will probably see herself variously as St Theresa the Martyr and Agent May in enemy territory (the UK) carrying out OPERATION QUISLING on behalf of the EU.

What the behaviour of the Remainers has done is shatter utterly the idea that the UK is a functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, an elite in the UK whose general political ideas are largely shared by the various competing parts of that elite.

It is no surprise that democracy is being thwarted. The German sociologist Robert Michels in the early years of the twentieth century developed what he called the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

Michels was particularly interested in the way that organisations such as social democratic parties and trade unions which purported to exist to promote the interests of the working class invariably ended up serving the interest of those who came to wield power in such bodies, whilst becoming progressively more authoritarian and bureaucratic.

But although Michels had a special interest in leftist organisations the Iron Law of Oligarchy is generally applicable to any organisation or even any informal social group. The historian of 18th Century English politics Lewis Namier estimated that Britain was ruled by a few hundred families when the population was less than 10 million. The depressing reality is that probably today Britain is effectively ruled by no more than a few thousand families today. Look at the mainstream media, the politicians and with great wealth and the same families pop up over and over again.

The long march through the institutions

The treacherous behaviour of the Remainers is an object lesson in how internationalist elites have become dominant in Western politics since 1945.

A German student leader of the 1960s Rudi Dutschke put forward the idea of the Long March Through the Institutions whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be sufficient of such people to change the policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full flower.

The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures , denigrate their own societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism” (in reality anti-white racism) at its heart. The last brick in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refused to toe the politically correct line , treatment which is increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.

The idea of the Long March through the institutions has several emotional appeals. First, it has the allure of a conspiracy, of being part of something both bigger than its individual members and something terribly important. The fact that it is a long term project does not matter because each individual member of the conspiracy can see themselves as helping to build towards the promised end even if that end is not achieved in their lifetime.

It is no surprise that Marxixts of various hues have been attracted to it because Marxism works on the same principles of working towards a utopia without any certainty that it will happen in a particular individual’s lifetime.

Robotics and AI

The lack of action by politicians throughout the world and in particular in the First Word is staggering. It is quite clear that robotics and AI systems development is rushing ahead. When it reaches the level where most jobs can be done by machines the game is up for capitalism as we know it because huge and rapid unemployment will inevitably result and that in turn will cause a catastrophic drop in demand.

The fact that politicians routinely bleat out the claim that as with all previous technological innovations new jobs will be made to replace the ones taken by machines shows how far away they are from understanding what is happening, Intelligent machines will not only take existing jobs they will be able to do the new jobs which arise.

Free expression is a straight forward concept , you either have it or a range of permitted opinion, a range which may be altered at any time. No country has ever had true freedom of expression but some, especially the Anglophone countries, have had a very wide range of permitted opinion. No more . The range of permitted opinion in Britain and the West has rapidly declined, largely driven by the tentacles of political correctness being spread ever further and more tightly. That creed routinely requires reality is to be denied, for example, schoolchildren are now to told that boys have periods and judges insist that transsexuals appearing in court must be referred to as she (in the case of a transsexual man) or he (in the case of a transsexual woman). What difference is there between such sinister nonsense and Winston Smith in 1984 being forced to say he saw five fingers when only four of O’Brien’s fingers were held up before him?

That is the real killer about political correctness. It requires a constant denial of reality whether that is something as crass boys having periods or the more subtle pressure to disregard reality which comes with the demand that racial and cultural diversity in a society is a good in itself.

It is universities in the West which are most publicly driving a general intolerance of ideas which fall outside the internationalist left’s concept of what should be permitted. To those end students clamour for “safe spaces” where nothing which offends the politically correct is allowed and any speaker with a contrary view is refused a hearing in what is known as no-platforming.

This mentality is also prevalent throughout schools where even the most unlikely subject such as maths can be dragooned into the service of political correctness. Hence, by the time pupils reach the age of 18 they have been well and truly indoctrinated with the “right” politically correct views.

The ideological justification for such behaviour is found in the concept of Repressive Tolerance developed by Herbert Marcuse :

“ Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

“Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”

China, Russia and India

All my adult life I have cleaved to the idea that China and Russia (or the USSR) should be kept at arms length. This is because by their very nature and , in the case of China also by her very size ,they represent threats to the West. Instead, naive Western politicians, who are almost all politically correct fantasists by now, have not merely engaged with China and Russia but have done so on the comically mistaken basis that by engaging with the Russians and Chinese they would change Russian and Chinese ways to that of the West as they discovered the supposed benefits of free markets and “joys of diversity.” The result has been that both Russia and China, far from succumbing to Western cultural values, have become increasingly powerful.

They represent different dangers. Russia has all the characteristics of a gangster state but one with a formidable number of nuclear weapons and the Chinese are ever more aggressive and assertive generally. It bodes very ill for the future, especially in China’s case , for that gigantic country has extraordinary ambitions as is shown by their belt and road infrastructure project to provide roads and waterways which will allow China to have access to much of the East . Their disregarded for anything resembling a justice system is seen by the subsequent arrest of three Canadians – see here and here – in response to the Canadians arresting Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer of the Chinese electronics giant Huawei. Meng’s arrest was at the request of the USA for extradition to the US for breaching sanctions imposed on Iran. The arrest of the three Canadians so soon after Meng’s arrest is best seen as hostage taking by China.

India is showing signs of mimicking China in it attitude towards the West. However, India is far less monolithic than the former, for whereas China as a country and culture has a genuine historical identity , the state of India is a creation of the Raj. Before the Raj the territory which comprises modern India was simply a geographical expression just as Europe is. Consequently, being so much more fragmented than China and lacking a centralising controlling power , there is a much less uniform response to the West by India than that of China to the West.

Africa and Latin America

No real change. Africa has been as brutal as ever and Latin America, although superficially more sophisticated that Africa, is still remarkably violent and disorderly.

The shrinking of democratic control

Throughout the West there is growing serious opposition to mass immigration and internationalist politicians who generally ignore the wishes of their electorates. The internationalists have only themselves to blame if their political correct ideals are trampled on because they are the ones with their incontinent approach to immigration and the realities of human nature who have wrought this change. If the world is headed for racially and ethnically based repression at best and ethnically and racially based civil war at worst they are to blame.

Democracy is a tricky concept which is best thought of as a measure of control over the elite rather than an absolute quality . The hard truth is that there is only one important general political question in any society, namely, how far are the masses able to control the naturally abusive nature of the elite?

The best form of control the masses have is representative government based on a full adult franchise. If the country also has a written constitution with protection for things such as freedom of speech and assembly with a means of holding voter instituted referenda so much the better. Of course, like every human institution it can be perverted but any other political arrangement will make elite abuse much easier for then we are in the realm of dictatorship.

The reality is that countries which have a long lasting and unbroken tradition of political representation on a broad franchise (and consequently a respect for freedom and individual rights) are remarkably rare. The UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the outstanding examples. All have avoided both civil war and occupation by a conquering power for over 150 years.

In continental Europe there is not a major state with such an unbroken record of avoidance of civil war and occupation better than better than the 73 years since the end of the second world war. Most cannot boast a record of even 50 years (think of Spain and the divided Germany).

Even amongst the more Minor European states it would be difficult to find others who have had a long and unbroken record of representative government.. Switzerland was successfully invaded during Napoleonic times and did not give women the vote until 1971; Denmark,Sweden and Norway were all absolute monarchies until well into the 19th century (although intermittent representative activity in these countries occurred) , with Denmark and Norway .being invaded during the Second World War.

In Asia and Africa the idea of representative politics where it exists, which is not very often, is at best a very corrupt version of what we call democracy.

Latin America has seen many attempts at Bolivarian inspired democracy, but almost as many failures and the area is really not better than Asia or Africa in its actual way of conducting politics.

It is interesting to compare the effectiveness of the English derived states – USA, Canada, Australia and NZ – with the fallibility of the Spanish derived states in Latin America. England and Spain were the two colonial powers who settled large numbers of their own people in colonies which later became independent states . The difference in the political success of the English and Spanish in England and Spain was replicated in their heavily settled colonies.

The European Union has be a great dissolver of democratic control in the First World since 1945.

The world becomes ever more disorderly

I cannot do better than quote my words from 2017:

“Contrary to Steven Pinker’s view that the world is becoming more peaceful, if civil conflict is included things are getting worse. Formal war may be less easy to identify , but ethnic (and often religious ) based strife plus repression by rulers is so widespread outside the West that it is best described as endemic. Globalisation = destabilisation because by making the world’s economic system more complex , there is simply more to go wrong both economically and socially. Sweeping aside traditional relationships and practices is a recipe for social discord. All of economic history tells you one thing above all else: a strong domestic economy is essential for the stability of any country. The ideology of laissez faire, is like all ideologies, at odds with human nature and reality generally and its application inevitably creates huge numbers of losers when applied to places such as China and India.”

The BBC recently broadcast Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech about immigration which is known popularly as the Rivers of Blood speech. The speech is forthright in its treatment of mass non-white immigration and couched in terms which prompted the onetime Labour minister Lord Adonis to attempt to have it banned by Ofcom on the grounds that “If a contemporary politician made such a speech they would almost certainly be arrested and charged with serious offences.” Ofcom refused to intervene but only because they did not act until material had been broadcast.

On the face of it this might seem a strange programme for the assiduously politically correct BBC to air because the . However, it served two purposes for them. First, the BBC likes to maintain the pretence that “all views are represented”. Programmes such as this allow them to say, see, we allow views across the political spectrum. Second, the shape of the programme allowed the BBC to have the last word on what Powell foretold.

The breaking up the speech into sections which were commented upon by commentators who were in the main unreserved critics of Powell – Simon Heffer, Powell’s biographer, was the token Powell supporter and even he attempted to put his support within a politically correct envelope.

The interruptions to the speech inevitably diminished the force of the speech but the great lack was a failure to address much of Powell’s predictions. .For example, Powell’s forecasts for the growth of black and Asian minorities in the UK were pretty accurate as the 2011 census shows, viz:

“Amongst the 56 million residents in England and Wales, 86% were White, 8% were Asian/Asian British and 3% were Black/African/Caribbean/Black British.”

“In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.”

Powell was also correct in predicting a lack of integration and the creation of de facto ghettos by immigrants and their descendants.

In addition Powell foresaw the effects of state enforcement of censorship on anyone who spoke out against immigration and its effects is only too visible today when thousands of people every year find themselves in criminal courts because they have said or written something deemed to be racially or religiously “hate speech”. ( It is worth adding in passing that the constraints on what may be said about race and immigration have acted as a springboard for political correctness in general to flourish.)

When Powell spoke of the black man having the whip hand over the white man he was thinking of how the 1968 Race Relations Act would affect the existing relationship between the population of the UK. He saw that those who were from racial and ethnic minorities would have a new form of privilege deriving from the fact that such people would be able to insist that they be served or employed in a way the native white population would not be able to insist. For example, a native white Briton would not normally be able to cry racism if he was denied a job because the vast majority of employers were (and are) white. Anyone who was black or Asian would have huge opportunity to make a claim of racism because most employers were (and are) white.

“But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.”

In his speech Powell quoted the Labour minister John Stonehouse on the subject of communal privileges which minority groups were already demanding when Powell made the speech. Stonehouse had written this

“’The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’”

None of these issues were addressed meaningfully or at all in the discussion breaks which interrupted the reading of the speech.

On Powell’s prediction of violent racial clashes with “the Tiber foaming with much blood”, it is true that has not yet occurred in the sense of large scale fighting between the native population and the minority immigrants. However, there has been a series of serious riots by non-whites since he Powell gave the speech, the most recent in 2011. Moreover, it is worth pointing out Powell put no time limit as to when such violence might occur. Common sense suggests that the larger the racial and ethnic minorities become the greater will be the racial tension because the minorities will demand more and more privilege for their own group. It is also worth noting that non-white immigrants have brought a disproportionate amount of crime to the streets of Britain, much of it violent. That propensity for violence could easily be harnessed to fight racial/ethnic disputes.

As for the general effect of non-white immigration, it has undeniably resulted in a fractured and vastly less cohesive society.

Work records, especially those from public employments, substantial companies and not-for-profit agencies such as charities.

Volunteer work.

Benefit records.

Tax records.

Vehicle records such those held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Utility bills such as those for energy, water and the telephone.

Bank and building society accounts.

Mortgages.

Rent records

Loans.

Hire purchase.

Credit card accounts.

Police and CPS records ranging from reports of crimes in which the person is the victim, reports of crime which have led to the person being investigated as a suspect but not convicted of a crime and criminal records acquired by the person.

Reports in the media about the person.

Membership of clubs or other groups which have a formal membership requirement.

If there is any difficulty in getting an organisation the person thinks is holding the data they require, there is a simple process which will force them supply it if it exists. This is known as a subject access request which is made under the Data Protection Act. A lawyer is not needed to do this so the cost is minimal, perhaps £10.

Anyone who has lived in the UK for most or all of the past 50 or 60 years really should not have that much difficulty providing multiple proofs of residence.

If these types of check are not made and the word of the person involved is simply taken as all the proof needed, the regularisation of the status of genuine long-term residents without citizenship would be open to straightforward abuse. Anyone who was of the right age could simply claim that they had been in the UK over the relevant period and gain a permanent right to remain.

Steven Cree as Group Captain James Stagg , a Royal Air Force meteorologist

Angela Costello as Kay Summersby chauffeur and later as personal secretary to Dwight D. Eisenhower

Richard Durden as Jan Smuts South African general turned politician

Ella Purnell as Helen Garrett (Churchill’s secretary)

Director: Jonathan Teplitzky

Script by Alex von Tunzelmann

This was a disappointing film in terms of its general theatrical quality which veers towards the melodramatic , but even more because it is a travesty of Churchill’s character. That fine actor Brian Cox might have been made for the role of Churchill and with a script which reflected Churchill’s personality , opinions and behaviour accurately I have no doubt that he would have produced a great depiction of the man. But here he is bound by a script which makes Churchill seem like a tempestuous child, and child who more often than not could be side-lined and insulted to his face despite being Prime Minister in the midst of a most terrible and threatening war. It is difficult to think of any scene involving characters with power and influence which shows him as s being the dominant character, for example, he does not chair the meetings with Eisenhower and the other military men. In real life he did.

The film is set in the four days before D-Day and the execution of t Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy. Churchill is portrayed as being pathologically anxious that the invasion should not be another bloodbath like Gallipoli in the Great War, a failure for which Churchill had been widely held wholly or largely responsible. As a consequence the film has him interminably prevaricating over the D-Day landings and after the decision is made to invade Churchill is shown praying for unfavourable weather to stop the operation: “Please, please, please let it pour tomorrow. Let the heavens open and a deluge burst forth such as has never been seen in the English Channel. Let the sea churn into peaks and troughs and tidal waves!”

That passage encapsulates the tone of the film. Churchill is not seen as being either in command or as a figure of authority but as a man frightened for his reputation and perhaps his soul. So strong a part of the film was the obsession with the failure at Gallipoli I could not help wondering if this was in some part a consequence of having an Australian director Jonathan Teplitzky. Australians are frequently more than a little angry about Gallipoli even today and blame the British for the loss of Australian lives there. Film scripts are not sacrosanct and It would be interesting to know if the subject of Gallipoli loomed as large in the initial script as it did in the film.

The historian Andrew Roberts has unreservedly slated the film for its many inaccuracies relating to Churchill’s state of mind leading up to the Normandy landings, viz: “The only problem with the movie–written by the historian Alex von Tunzelmann–is that it gets absolutely everything wrong. Never in the course of movie-making have so many specious errors been made in so long a film by so few writers.” Roberts attacks the film on the grounds that it wrongly shows Churchill as dithering over D-Day, being seriously at odds with his wife, at war with the generals and being bullying to his staff.

To the lack of historical accuracy about events and Churchill’s state of mind can be added the portrayal of his physical state . Churchill in real life was far from the physically lumbering man obese to the point almost of physical handicap that was depicted in the film. He played polo into his fifties and rode to hounds into his seventies (in 1944 he was seventy) . This physical misrepresentation fed into the picture the film painted of Churchill being a man who by that stage of the war at least was a spent force at best and a positive hindrance to the successful prosecution of the war.

The depiction of Churchill’s relationship with the military is also improbable. He is shown displaying a chronic fault of Hitler, namely, playing at being a military mastermind by suggesting different strategies such as decoy operations to mislead the Germans, tactics which fed into the film’s Gallipoli complex. There are also some startling and incongruous in the circumstances language involving the military with Montgomery calling Churchill a ‘bastard’ to his face and casting aspersions on his commitment to the Normandy landings by accusing Churchill of ‘doubt, dithering and treachery’. The PM later describes Montgomery (not in Montgomery’s presence) as a ‘Puffed-up little s**t.’ It all seems very unlikely, not least because it implies that the military not the politicians were the real government of the UK at that time.

In fact the film plays to that idea for there is a strange absence of other British politicians in the film and or indeed of any civilians in position of authority and influence. For example, Churchill’s leading scientific advisor Frederick Lindemann had a very close relationship with him and the two met often during the war.. It is a little odd that he did not appear at all because apart from his value as a scientific advisor Llindemann had a real friendship with Churchill and at a time of great stress for Churchill it is probable that he ill would have welcomed having Lindemann around.

Then there is Churchill’s relationship with his wife Clemmie. She is shown as being very ready to criticise Churchill either directly through confrontation as when she scolds him for his drinking and indirectly by her general behaviour towards him which includes her apologising for Churchill’s behaviour towards his staff . She is also shown slapping him at one point for which there is no evidence. There is also rather too much angst from Clemmie about how Churchill had neglected her and a feeling that somehow her life has been unfulfilling. Churchill is shown playing up to this, at one point saying ‘I would understand if you left me. I’d leave me if I could.’ Real?

Even if there had been any substance to this behaviour would Churchill’s wife have been raising it just before D-Day? However, again the evidence for such behaviour is lacking. This element of the filmic Clemmie’s behaviour smells suspiciously like an inappropriate and anachronistic feminist implant designed to show that men behaved “badly”, that is, displayed politically incorrect behaviour, in 1944 and women spiritedly rebelled against such treatment. The fact that the scriptwriter Alex von Tunzelmann is female may have something to do with this , a suspicion strengthened by her being a Guardian columnist. It would be very interesting to see Tunzelmann justifying her script in terms of historical accuracy.

Is the film worth seeing? Probably not for as a pure piece of drama it fails. The action flits from scene to scene in rather stilted fashion which robs the film of cohesion and leaves the impression that each scene is being ticked off as having covered a particular issue as a stamp collector might congratulate themselves on having acquired a particular stamp to add to a set. Nor apart from Churchill and just about his wife is there much character development for the film has a substantial number of historically important characters but little time is allotted to each. These supporting characters are, as one can more or less take for granted in a film manned by British actors, adroitly executed in as far as their very limited roles allow. Within the confines of this hindrance of Julian Wadham’s Montgomery stood out.

That should be enough to say don’t waste your money. However Dunkirk is one of those films which has an importance beyond its qualities as a film. Its effect is to turn Churchill from a war hero into an irresolute, fearful and incompetent. In fact the misrepresentation of Churchill is so complete that it qualifies as character assassination . The danger is that it will colour the public’s view of the man. Consequently, see it so that you can afterwards refute its view of Churchill. In short, it should be seen for its faults not its virtues .

Trying to understand history without understanding the religious mind is like teaching someone the vocabulary of a language without explaining how the grammar works. Nor is the religious mind simply concerned with what are generally called religions. Such minds can be and often are attracted by secular ideologies such as Marxism, Fascism or political correctness. These are substitutes for what are normally called religions. Beneath such formalised ideas there is the natural human preference for the culture and people in which an individual has been raised. Social animals need habits and humans being the social animal par excellence require very sophisticated ones.

Memes

The idea of memes comes from the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins. A meme is the mental equivalent of a gene. They contain ideas. Dawkins introduced the word to the world in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. The meme, like a gene, is self-replicating and can undergo mutation. It affects behaviour creates cultural.

There was nothing entirely novel about such an idea, it having been discussed in Darwin’s time. For example, T. H. Huxley believed that ‘The struggle for existence holds as much in the intellectual as in the physical world. A theory is a species of thinking, and its right to exist is coextensive with its power of resisting extinction by its rivals.’ (Huxley, T. H. “The coming of age of ‘The origin of species” (1880) Science. 1, 15-17.) But Dawkins gave the idea a new clarity and set it against the background of genetics.

Memes can form entire ideologies such as religions or political theories like Marxism or they may be a stand-alone social rule such as wear black to a funeral or don’t eat with your mouth open. Memes like genes can be beneficial, harmful or neutral in their effects.

It might be though that judging a meme as objectively good or bad is impossible, but it is possible if the judgement is based upon the evolved nature of a particular society. For example, if a society is a warrior society, individuals with a penchant for violence can, other things being equal, be valuable. Conversely, a society in which non-violent behaviour is the norm the violent mentality will be a handicap to the individual who has it and a danger to the efficient functioning of the society.

The problem of consciousness

We are in a prison of self-consciousness amplified by high intelligence and above all language. Both these things set humans apart from any other organism. These qualities naturally lead to attempts to explain what humans perceive to be reality, a reality which will often seem threatening, especially if the person is living in a society which has no science to explain natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, thunder and lightning, plagues and floods.

Imagine the existential context of a hunter gatherer band. It is not that its members are innately stupid or ignorant. Indeed, they will have a considerable repertoire of useful and essential skills from understanding how to trap and kill animals, where to gather berries and nuts, how to make tools and other artefacts. But their world will be a constant source of wonder and bewilderment. They will have not have any idea of why rivers flood, volcanoes roar as they belch lava or the sun appears to die every day and gradually burns less brightly as the year progresses before returning with regained vigour. To these phenomena will be added the dangers and fears which result from living amongst dangerous animals and in competition with other groups of humans who do not belong to their band or tribe. Magic is the only means these people have of making sense of what they experience and most importantly it is an ostensible means of controlling reality.

Magic can take a wide variety of forms. It will not necessarily involve a god because the belief may come simply from a belief that if X is done Y will follow. Drawing a scene of a successful hunt on a cave wall supposedly makes a successful hunt more probable; the casting of a spell supposedly makes a woman fertile; the drinking of a potion is said to cure a sick child; the sacrificing an animal or human to the gods is done to ensure a good harvest or victory over another tribe.

Of course the desired outcome of the magic will often not materialise, but it will sometimes by pure coincidence. Moreover, it is not always by mere chance. The Shaman of the band will probably have a knowledge of plants which may indeed have a positive effect as a result of by trial and error over many generations – indeed some animals self-medicate – and there is also the powerful placebo effect which when linked to ritual is likely to be heightened. The performing of ritual will in itself will have a reassuring effect.

But even if failure to produce the desired result of magic occurs it will not automatically be taken as evidence of the futility of the magic but more likely be attributed to the god’s disfavour or merely to the magic not being strong enough or the time unpropitious .

Magic may be as the author of the Golden Bough James Frazer defined it, “a spurious system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct; it is a false science as well as an abortive art”, but it is still a psychological comfort, not least because as with true science it provides rituals to follow as well as the belief that they are shaping reality.

Superstition

Magic in the form of superstition is very common even in advanced modern societies. More often than not it has nothing to do with formal religion. Sportsmen in particular are notoriously superstitious: insisting on dressing in a certain sequence, using a favourite bat or racquet, taking the field in a team sport in a particular order and so on, but few humans are entirely untouched by it.

Looked at rationally such behaviour seems absurd to those who live in societies in which rational scientific explanations can be given for most things and even where such an explanation cannot be given people will believe that one exists but has yet to be discovered. Yet the grip of scientific rationality is only skin deep. No matter how rational humans think themselves the majority, and probably the large majority , will still use such psychological tricks to deal with the stress of self-consciousness .

What this tells us is that even though there is no rational basis for believing such rituals will have the effect desired, they can undoubtedly provide an individual with psychological comfort and a sense that in some way the individual has exercised some sort of control over situations which do not lend themselves to any rational solution.

The step after magic and superstition

If magic is what might be termed the innate human response to self-consciousness the next step is the creation of formal religion This will have holy texts and develop a sociology to encompass larger populations than the band or tribe. The population will have moved from a nomadic to a settled way of life.

Some like Hinduism will have multiple gods, others such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism will have a single god. Buddhism, at least in its purest form, has no god. But belief in the supernatural is something all formal religions require including Buddhism , because that faith even in its purest seemingly most rational form requires the believer to accept the reality of rebirth with the eventual end of nirvana.

Nor is magic dead within formal religions. Even a sophisticated religion such as Catholicism has some decidedly primitive aspects, for example, the doctrine of transubstantiation requires a belief that the bread and wine given in the Eucharist are literally transformed into the blood and flesh of Christ. Nor will all practices not compatible with a particular religion be ended by the religion’s putative dominance. The widespread belief in and persecution of people accused of being witches in Europe in the early modern period is a classic example of this.

Religion as an organising principle

Larger settled populations require more sophisticated social structures. Religion has an innate organising quality which aids the formation of such social structures. This has routinely meant its has been used to justify monarchical power either by the monarch wielding the religious authority themselves or by having a religious caste which either justified the right of the monarch to rule or which exercised the monarchical authority itself.

The belief that the worship of God in a certain way was integral to the good order and fortune of a country and its people is strong in most religions. A failure to follow the “right” form of religion could mean disaster for a people. Any misfortune could be ascribed to a failure of faith or of observance. The Black Death was put down to precisely that while the destruction of the Spanish Armada to England in 1588, in which the weather played a significant part, was attributed by the Spanish to some lack in their society and as a sign of God’s favour by the English.

The potency of religion

It is important to understand that religious belief is not something simply imposed on people or just a habit acquired through their upbringing. The sufferings of those who have refused to deny their faith are truly extraordinary. The Inquisition did not simply condemn people out of hand. Those who had taken up a variety of Christianity other than Catholicism were frequently excused from punishment if they recanted. Faced with death by burning at the stake many chose that death rather than recanting. Some, like Archbishop Cranmer, recanted than went back on their recantation and were burnt. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs all too graphically bears witness to the sufferings borne over the centuries.

Religion and the secular mind

To understand the religious mind is also to understand the mind of those gripped by a secular ideology, for the psychological and sociological outcomes are the same as those experienced by the religious. That is particularly true of totalitarian ideologies such as Marxism or political correctness which offer the promise of an eventual future state in which the ideology is fully realised.

Marxists believe that the movement of the dialectic through history will inevitably lead to the state of Communism. That belief is psychologically the equivalent of going to Heaven for the Christian or Paradise for the Muslim or Nirvana for the Buddhist. Something similar happens when the politically correct encounter human behaviour which brutally contradicts their view of the world. They do not draw the obvious conclusion, namely, that political correctness is a incompatible with our evolved nature. Instead, they say it shows that that more time must be spent in educating the politically incorrect to believe that the mores of political correctness are the only way to behave and believe.

One of the most peculiar secular ideologies, which has been around since the early 19th Century, is the quasi-religious devotion to laissez faire economics which for its true believers, the neo-liberals, means holding rigidly to the idea that free markets and free trade are a sure-fire means to greatly increase general prosperity and that it is rationally the only economic system to follow. This might seem a very dry subject to engage people emotionally. Yet its believers tend to become extremely agitated if a contrary view is put to them and more often than not refuse to offer any contrary argument or facts when faced with an opponent of their creed. In short they display all the signs of the religious believer.

Why does it attract followers? For the same reason any ideology is adopted. It offers itself as an algorithm to order the world. It is sometimes hailed as a general libertarian good by its proponents which could engage the emotions, but few people who claim to be libertarians actually live their lives by the creed. A much more plausible explanation, at least for the true believers, , is that these are people who find the idea of a neat mechanical ideology which tells them just stand back and don’t interfere with the market intellectually satisfying. In addition, like all ideologies, sacred or profane, laissez faire allows its followers to believe that action is being taken to control the world. Ironically, intellectually and emotionally it offers just what Marxism does, an eventually utopia which comes about automatically when economic life takes on a certain shape.

The fact that humans are so susceptible to the lure of ideologies and habit must mean that this behavioural trait serves some vital evolutionary purpose because otherwise it would not have persisted. The purpose is to unite and order a society.

Security is what the vast majority of humans want. It is part of our evolved nature. If you offer a man or woman a guaranteed income of £25,000 pa or a ten percent chance of gaining an income of £100,000 pa most will choose the certainty of £25,000.

When it comes to having and raising a family in a country which has readily available contraception and safe abortion practices a sense of security becomes vitally important. Without those two hindrances to producing children birthrates will normally look after themselves by at least maintaining a population and in all probability increasing it if the availability of the essentials of life – food, clothing, heat and shelter – is sufficient to maintain increasing numbers of people.

Where contraception and abortion are readily available individuals can and frequently do refrain from having many children. That is the case in rich industrialised countries where the number of children a couple have is to a very large extent a matter of choice. Because of this birthrates in the West are currently either below replacement levels (which require 2.1 children per woman) or are only just meeting the replacement level . Moreover, the Western countries which do meet the replacement level often do so only because of the higher fertility rates of black and Asian immigrants and their descendants , who at least for several generations after the initial act of migration maintain a higher rate of breeding than the native white populations of the West.

Why are the native populations of the West failing to reproduce in sufficient quantities? The fact that abortion and contraception are readily available is part of the explanation, but the reduction in children is also the consequence of changes in general social circumstances and the mentality of people rather than an immediate cause. Infant mortality is low so having a large family to guarantee that enough children survive to adulthood is no longer necessary. In addition, the creation of full blown welfare states means that people are no longer necessarily dependent upon their children for help in their old age so they do not see their children as an essential insurance policy for their future.

There are attempts to explain the decline in births in the West by claiming that fertility is falling. This does not meet the facts. Take abortions. 185,824 were undertaken in England and Wales in 2015. The birthrate for England and Wales in 2015 was 1.83 with 697,852 live births. Had no abortions been performed in 2015 the England and Wales birthrate would have been comfortably over the 2.1 replacement rate. In short, the UK (and the West generally) does not have a fertility problem but an abortion problem.

But none of this explains why reproduction has become so depressed that it has dipped below replacement level. Contraception and abortion together with the changes in social organisation mentioned above might explain if most people were stopping at, say, three children. A proportion of the population will simply decide for whatever reason that they do not want children, most people still want to have children and most people actually have children. The problem is they frequently do not have enough children to replace themselves. So what is going on? The missing element is insecurity.

Cultural insecurity

The huge numbers of unassimilable immigrants which have been allowed to settle in the West have not only depressed the material conditions of the Western native populations (especially the poorer parts of those populations) through competition for jobs, housing, welfare, health and education. They have also by their failure to assimilate created a constant and growing anxiety amongst the native population, especially those parts of the population which have found themselves living in areas heavily settled by racial and ethnic minorities.

Allied to the changes wrought by unassimilated immigrants is the grip political correctness has on Western societies. This is an ideology which covers an ever wider range of subjects in which “discrimination” is zealously detected by its adherents , but at its core lies the idea of multiculturalism. This asserts that all cultures are equal and results in the pretence that the native culture and native population have no greater status than that of the immigrant derived communities and that consequently all immigrant cultures should retain their ancestral ways. The result of this is the creation of ghettos in which the larger immigrant groups live lives that are separate from the rest of the population and to all intents and purposes the ghetto represents a colonisation of the areas affected All of this is dangerous for both the native population and the immigrant because it promotes anger amongst the native populations and unreasonable expectations amongst the minorities created by immigration.

The politically correct internationalist elites have gone to great lengths to suppress resistance by the native population to mass immigration and its consequences. The culture and ethnic interests of the minority populations are relentlessly promoted while the culture and ethnic interests of the native populations are suppressed. Any criticism of immigration or its consequences is met with accusations of racism which both the mainstream media and politicians promote routinely. Punishments are exacted such as hate-filled media witch hunts, the loss of a job and, increasingly, criminal charges for saying politically incorrect things about immigration and/or its consequences. The fact that similar though generally lesser punishments are meted out to anyone who it is claimed has breached other aspects of political correctness – most commonly accusations of homophobia and sexism – intensifies the sense of claustrophobia which the imposition of strict limits to what may and may not be said naturally creates.

To the suppression of complaint about mass immigration Western elites have added the denigration of the native cultures from which they have sprung. The history of countries such as the UK and USA are constantly portrayed as something to be ashamed. Collective guilt is laid upon the shoulders of the current native white populations for the existence of colonialism and the slave trade. Anything which is praiseworthy in white history is suppressed or diluted by ahistorical claims that it was not really the work of the whites or that if it was whites who were responsible they were only able to produce the praiseworthy thing because of white oppression of non-white peoples. Any expression of national feeling by the native white populations is immediately decried as nationalism at best and racism at worst.

The constant brainwashing has its effects, for example, in 2112 a substantial minority of English people said when questioned that the St George’s flag is racist, , but it is by no means wholly successful in obliterating the non-pc feelings of much of the population. The politically correct find in particular the resistance of the native poor to eagerly assume the politically correct agenda tiresome at best and unforgiveable at worst. As a consequence the white working class have gone from being the salt of the earth in the 1950s and 1960s to being seen as irredeemable now.

There is also another cultural aspect. It has become fashionable in the West to say that large families are antisocial, that breeding freely is a form of selfishness for it both takes up resources and endangers the planet because Western countries use per capita much more of the Earth’s resources (especially energy from fossil fuels) than the developing world. This has given those who could afford to have as many children as they wanted, or at least many more than they do have, a pseudo-moral “green” reason for not breeding freely, something they can readily ensure with reliable and easy to get contraception and abortion. This pseudo-moral reason is bolstered by people in the media peddling the same idea and by the social circle of each individual doing the same. It is all part of the Western guilt trip so assiduously developed and tended by the politically correct.

Material insecurity

The feeling that a person is not culturally secure in the place where they live is the most fundamental and corrosive cause of insecurity, but even without that there are plenty of material circumstances which can rob people of their security, for example, a lack of affordable and secure housing, the absence of a secure job which pays enough to raise a family and inadequate schools and medical services.

The wealthier people are the more security they both have and feel they have. For the rich having as many children as they want is purely a social and personal choice because affordability does not come into it. But the truly rich are by definition very limited in any society and the creation of ever increasing differences in wealth stemming from the combination of globalisation and laissez faire economics has led to the shrinking of the proportion of Western populations which can really feel economically secure. Today what were once the comfortable middle classes are feeling the pinch, especially those who have not got on the property ladder. In most parts of the UK the only way a mortgage can be afforded by those getting on the property ladder today is for both the man and woman in a relationship to work full time, something which inevitably reduces the enthusiasm for and opportunity to have children. But even the dual income property purchase is increasingly a pipe dream as property prices have reach absurd levels with the average UK price in 2017 being £317,000. In fact purchasing a property is becoming impossible even for those with what would be regarded as very comfortable incomes. To the horrendous price of property can be added the insecurity generated by the fact that jobs are no longer secure even for the highly educated and skilled. Consequently, the middle classes are feeling more and more insecure and less and less likely to have more than two children.

But if the middleclass are struggling to keep up appearances the poor in the West are really in the mire. They suffer from the same problems as the middle classes, the cost of housing and the insecurity of jobs, but in an amplified form, not least because they rely much more on state provision than the middle classes and state provision is being squeezed by the legacy the 2008 crash, the continued extravagance of an Aid regime which currently costs around £13 billion pa, the cost of being in the EU, the offshoring of jobs to the developing world, and most obviously and painfully to the ordinary Briton by the huge numbers of immigrants arriving in the West who compete for healthcare, school places, social housing and jobs, especially those which have traditionally been done by the native Western poor.

Historically a sense of security for the poor has largely come from them providing aid to one another, either individually or through organisations which helped and protected the poor such as churches, trade unions, friendly societies and the co-operative movement. Such mutual help is almost gone now amongst the native poor in the UK (and most of the West). This is partly because state-provided welfare has substituted for the help from churches, trade unions, charities and suchlike and partly it is down to the fact that the native poor have had their social circles fractured either by being shifted from the areas they used to dominate to places where they are not in the majority or they still live in their original areas but these have been subject to mass immigration of those who cannot or will not assimilate. Either way this has produced the same end of the native poor living in areas which they do not dominate.

The particular problem of housing

At first when the native British poor were moved from the slums after WW2 there was a plentiful supply of what is now called social housing and was called council housing then. These were let on lifelong tenancies, tenancies which could also be passed down the generations. This provided a secure base to raise a family. Private rents were also controlled. This situation remained until the 1980s.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher did two things to greatly reduce the social housing stock. She created a Right-to-Buy for those in council housing which steadily reduced the existing stock of publicly owned properties to let at rents which those on low wages could afford and came close to killing off the building of new council housing. Controls on private rents were also removed.

Had pre-1980 levels of house building been maintained with immigration at per-1997 levels there would have been something of a housing shortage but nothing like the crisis we now have. The problem is that immigration did not stay at re 1997 levels but skyrocketed under Blair and has remained huge ever since . In 1997 the estimated UK population was 58 million, today it is 66 million. Most of this huge increase is down to immigration.

The absence of a secure affordable home is surely the biggest material barrier to starting a family, but insecurity of work runs it a not too far distant second and of course bleeds into the question of whether a secure home can be afforded. Margaret Thatcher came to power with a mission to reduce state ownership through the privatisation of all the large nationalised industries and a desire to see market forces produce what was blithely called “creative destruction” of our manufacturing industry (much of which was off shored) while the British coal industry was wilfully destroyed. This resulted in a huge loss of jobs of the sort which had been the staple of the native working class.

The increase in immigration has led to competition not just for skilled jobs but also the unskilled and semi-skilled work. Wages have been suppressed by this competition and cemented into place by the payment of in-work benefits which have become an excuse for employers to keep wages low and to generally degrade conditions of employment. For example, there is the growth of self-employment from necessity rather than inclination and the rise of the zero-hours contract which does not guarantee any work but supplies work only when it suits the employer. A person might work 40 hours one week and 15 hours the next and zero hours the week after. This may suit a student or a couple where the person who is on a zero hours contract is working not provide the basis for a couple to start a family.

Finally, there is the threat posed by robotics and AI systems to employment. This has not reached the point where most jobs can be done by robots and/or AI systems. Nonetheless the technology has already devoured many jobs, especially manual ones, and the thought of what may happen as robots and AI systems get ever more powerful and intelligent will play on the fears of people especially if they have been made redundant through the introduction of such technology.

This is one case where the overwhelming majority are ultimately “all in it together”

All of these sources of insecurity come together to suppress Western reproduction. This is unsurprising. If couples cannot get a secure home and are constantly uncertain about whether they will be employed the next week; if they can only get low paid work; if they are constantly fighting with immigrants over public goods such as healthcare and education; if they have no social support as once the poor had; if they are constantly told they should be ashamed of their country and that it is selfish to have many children is it any wonder that with ready contraception and abortion that Western countries have birthrates below replacement level?

If insecurity is the answer to low birthrates then the answer must be to increase the sense of security within Western populations by raising morale by ending mass immigration, improving security of employment and engaging in massive house building programmes to dramatically increase the available property which is either within the scope of people to buy or allows them to rent at a reasonable price with the type of security of tenure found in the best publicly owned rental property. There also needs to be a clear understanding that the native populations of Western countries have priority over foreigners and an end to multiculturalism .

The perilous demographic position of Britain (and Western nations generally) can be seen in the fact that whereas it was the native British poor who were at risk of experiencing crippling insecurity fifteen or twenty years ago, today it is virtually anyone who is either not unreservedly rich or is old enough to have bought a property before prices rocketed is living in a seriously insecure world . No longer can the better off think that they are safe. Moreover, even the rich must wonder now and then if they are secure as the number of stable and prosperous countries in the world diminishes through a combination of mass immigration and terrorism.

The grip of the Western globalists is slipping. They do not realise it yet but their day is almost done. Their ramshackle ideology, a toxic blend of open borders politically correct internationalism and what is crony capitalism but called by those with a vested interest in it neo-liberal or laissez faire economics , has wrought as it was certain to do, rage and increasingly despair amongst the majority of electors in Western states who are increasingly turning to politicians that at least have some grasp of what is necessary to preserve the viability of Western nation states.

The most optimistic possibility for the West is that parties which do have some real attachment to what the great mass of people seek will be both elected and when in office carry through their pre-election promises. But this is far from certain. It does not follow that what will replace globalism will be a politics which reflects the wants and needs of Western voters because the existing elites may drop all pretence of being anything other than an authoritarian clique and go in for wholehearted suppression of any dissent. There are already signs that this might happen with the growing willingness amongst Western elites to censor political ideas, potent examples of which have been the recent conviction of Gert Wilders in Holland for inciting racial hatred by saying there should be fewer Moroccans in Holland , while in the UK the Prime Minister Theresa May has just sanctioned the putting into law of a definition of anti-Semitism so broad that any criticism Jews or Israel could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Much will depend on how Donald Trump’s presidency develops.

In Britain the EU referendum has dominated everything both before and after the vote to leave in the political year .The anti-democratic mind-set of those who wanted to remain in the EU has been nakedly shown by colossal attempts to sabotage the result of the referendum through legal and political action and an incessant bleat about how they want a soft Brexit not a hard Brexit when only Brexit exists.

Something which the government calls Brexit will eventually emerge, but it could easily be a beast which is directly at odds with what the British people voted on when they went to the polls on 23rd June, namely, for a clean break with the EU. If this government, or conceivably its successor, concludes a deal which stitches the UK back into the EU with such things as free movement of EU citizens into the UK, the UK paying for the “privilege” of remaining in the Single Market and the UK being subject to the European Court of Justice, there is surely a serious risk of political violence. But even if that is avoided British politics would be seriously curdled by such a betrayal.

The other pressing political need is for an English parliament and government to balance the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A procedure to have only MPs sitting for English seats voting on English only legislation (English votes for English laws or EVEL for short) began a trial in 2015, but it has few teeth because it is difficult to disentangle what is English only legislation, not least because MPs for seats outside of England argue that any Bill dealing solely with English matters has financial implications for the rest of the UK and , consequently, is not an England only Bill. Nor does EVEL allow English MPs to initiate English only legislation. Most importantly England , unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is left without any national political representatives to concentrate on purely English domestic matters.

The House of Lords review of its first year in operation makes EVEL’s limitations clear:

The EVEL procedures introduced by the Government address, to some extent, the West Lothian Question. They provide a double-veto, meaning that legislationor provisions in bills affecting only England (or in some cases, England and Wales, or England and Wales and Northern Ireland), can only be passed by the House of Commons with the support of both a majority of MPs overall, and of MPs from the nations directly affected by the legislation.

Yet English MPs’ ability to enact and amend legislation does not mirror their capacity, under EVEL, to resist legislative changes. The capacity of English MPs to pursue a distinct legislative agenda for England in respect of matters that are devolved elsewhere does not equate to the broader capacity of devolved legislatures to pursue a distinct agenda on matters that are devolved to them

The most dangerous general global threats are plausibly these in this order

Mass immigration, the permitting of which by elites is the most fundamental treason because unlike an invasion by force, there is no identifiable concrete foreign enemy for the native population to resist. Yet the land is effectively colonised just the same.

2 Uncontrolled technology, which leaves the developed world in particular but increasingly the world generally, very vulnerable to suddenly being left without vital services if computer systems fail naturally or through cyber attacks. Judged by the number of reports in the mainstream media the frequency of personal data being hacked and major computer systems going down, most notably banks, is increasing. This is unsurprising because both state organisations and private business are remorselessly forcing customers and clients to use web-based contact points rather than deal with a human being. This in itself makes life unpleasant and for older people in particular most difficult.

In the medium term – probably within ten years – there is the existential threat to humans of general purpose robots being able to cause a catastrophic drop in demand by taking over so many jobs that demand collapses because huge numbers are rapidly made unemployed. To that can be added the development of military robots which have the capacity to make autonomous judgements about killing humans.

The general lack of political concern and a seemingly universal inability of those with power and influence to see how robotics and AI systems generally are rapidly developing is astonishing. Time and again when the subject of robots and AI systems is raised with such people they will bleat that new jobs will arise due to the new technology, as new technology has always created jobs, and these developments will provide the jobs for humans.

This is sheer “it’ll never replace the horse” ism . Intelligent robots and AI systems will not only take existing jobs, they will take most or even all of the new jobs that arise. This is the potential catastrophe that humans face from robots and AI, the rapid loss of such huge amounts of employment that the economic systems of both the developed and the developing world cannot function because of the loss of demand, not the SF style scare stories about intelligent robots making war on humans. The other thing that politicians do not seem to understand is that when there are robots and AI systems sophisticated enough to do most of the jobs humans do, the loss of human jobs will occur at great speed. We can be certain of this for two reasons; our experience with digital technology is of rapid advances and robots and AI systems will be able to design and build even more advanced robots and AI systems, probably very quickly.

Aside from digital technology, advances in genetic engineering and ever more radical transplant surgery raise the question of what it is to be a human being if full face transplants are now available and the possibility of things such as a head being transplanted in the not too distant future. We need to ask ourselves what it is to be human.

Islam – serious unrest is found throughout the world wherever there are large numbers of Muslims.

Ever increasing general instability. Contrary to Steven Pinker’s view that the world is becoming more peaceful, if civil conflict is included things are getting worse. Formal war may be less easy to identify , but ethnic (and often religious ) based strife plus repression by rulers is so widespread outside the West that it is best described as endemic. Globalisation = destabilisation because by making the world’s economic system more complex , there is simply more to go wrong both economically and socially. Sweeping aside traditional relationships and practices is a recipe for social discord. All of economic history tells you one thing above all else: a strong domestic economy is essential for the stability of any country. The ideology of laissez faire, is like all ideologies, at odds with human nature and reality generally and its application inevitably creates huge numbers of losers when applied to places such as China and India.

The most dangerous specific threats to global peace and stability are:

– The heightened tension between China and the rest of the Far East (especially Japan) as a consequence of China’s growing territorial ambitions.

– China’s extraordinary expanding shadow world empire which consists of both huge investment in the first world and de facto colonial control in the developing world.

– The growing power of India which threatens Pakistan. An India/Pakistan nuclear exchange is probably the most likely use of nuclear weapons I the next ten years.

– The increasing authoritarianism of the EU due to both the natural impetus towards central control and the gross mistake of the Euro. This will end either in a successful centralisation of EU power after the UK has left the EU or the attempt at centralisation will lead to a collapse of the EU.

The Eurofanatics continue to play with fire in their attempts to lure border states of Russia into the EU whilst applying seriously damaging sanctions to Russia. It is not in the West’s interest to have a Russia which feels threatened or denied its natural sphere of influence.

– The ever more successful (at least in the short run) attempt of post-Soviet Russia to re-establish their suzerainty over the old Soviet Empire and Putin’s increasingly martial noises including substantial re-armament. However, these ambitions will be likely to be mitigated by the plight of the Russian provinces of the Far East where there is unofficial Chinese infiltration of the sparsely populated and natural resource rich land there. Eventually China will wish to capture those territories.

That is the bare bones of the matter, but there is something distinctly odd about this case for the reported facts relating to it do not seem to hang comfortably together. That Mair killed Cox is clear and his ostensible motive for committing the murder , namely, that she was a supporter of the remain side in the EU referendum is established, but precious little is else is satisfactorily explained.

The strangeness of the killing

Mair has no revealed previous history of violence , yet his attack on Cox was both sustained and involved not only the shooting of Cox but multiple stabbings. For a supposed first time killer Mair showed surprisingly little panic or squeamishness when confronted with the actuality of attacking someone in such a physically intimate manner. Instead , he was remarkably self-possessed during the attack and afterwards according to media reports, so much so that when a man called Rashid Hussain tried to intervene during the attack on Cox Mair coolly told him “ Move back, otherwise I’m going to stab you.” He also reloaded his .22 gun twice, shot Cox three times and stabbed her 15 times. Such determined and unflustered behaviour is unusual to say the least for someone who had never done anything like it before. About the only thing amateurish about the attack was the fact that he did not kill the MP quickly.

After the attack, Mair made no meaningful attempt to flee – he was arrested a mile away from the murder – and he did not disguise himself. A number of people witnessed the attack on Cox and as the killing was near Mair’s home the odds against him not being rapidly identified were vanishingly small.

The discontinuity between Mair’s behaviour before the trial and in the trial

At his trial everything changed. When called upon to plead he refused to do so and pleas of not guilty to the various charges were entered on his behalf, as is usual in English courts. The refusal to plead could be interpreted as Mair doing what many politically motivated people do when placed on trial, namely, attempt to remove legitimacy from the court by refusing to acknowledge it. However, people who take that course generally, one way or another, make it crystal clear what they are doing. All that Mair offered was silence until he had been convicted for he did not give evidence in his own defence.

What his attitude or strategy was in behaving in this manner is debatable because he can have had no meaningful expectation that the verdict would be anything but t guilty. Hence, he would have had no reason to fear cross examination because the fact that he killed Cox could not be reasonably said to be in dispute and prosecuting counsel would have had little to grill Mair about because the facts of the killing were not in dispute. Mair would have been able to have his own barrister lead him through whatever he wanted to say without much fear of the prosecution making him look silly in cross examination because there would have been precious little the Prosecution could have gained from cross examination as not only were the facts of the killing clear Mair defence did not include any evidence of mental illness.

The right to make an unsworn sentence before conviction was abolished in England in 1982 (by section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act. However, the Act gave a convicted defendant the right to speak in mitigation, viz:

“2 Abolition of right of accused to make unsworn statement.

(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, in any criminal proceedings the accused shall not be entitled to make a statement without being sworn, and accordingly, if he gives evidence, he shall do so [F1(subject to sections 55 and 56 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999)] on oath and be liable to cross-examination; but this section shall not affect the right of the accused, if not represented by counsel or a solicitor, to address the court or jury otherwise than on oath on any matter on which, if he were so represented, counsel or a solicitor could address the court or jury on his behalf.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent the accused making a statement without being sworn—

(a)if it is one which he is required by law to make personally; or

(b)if he makes it by way of mitigation before the court passes sentence upon him.”

Plainly Mair could have wanted to make a plea in mitigation and it would almost certainly have been a plea of mitigation in the sense that he wished to explain his actions which would whatever they were bear on mitigation even if he was to say he thought his action justified because Cox was a traitor for supporting the EU.

The refusal to allow him to speak should have been challenged by his barrister but appears not to have been.

Another oddity of the trial was the reading into evidence, that is, before Mair was convicted, of the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock’s statement about how praisworthy he thought Cox was. That was simply bizarre because it could have no bearing on Mair”s guilt or innocence. Again Mair’s brief appears to have made no protest.

After sentencing there was one last loose end put into the public arena. The police announced that they were trying to find the person, if any, who sold Mair the gun with which he shot Cox. (The gun was legally held by someone other than Mair before it was stolen in August 2015.) By the time of the trial the police had had more than four months to start such a search and it is somewhat surprising that they have made no progress to date. It may even be that the police have only just started looking because the Daily Telegraph on 23 November 2016 stated that “ A major manhunt was underway on Wednesday night for the person who handed the 53-year-old loner the modified bolt-action rifle, which was stolen almost a year before the murder.”

Mair’s silence

What are we to think about Mair’s failure to give evidence? If the man was driven by his politics his natural course would surely have been to make a statement to police detailing his reasons for killing Cox. Moreover, he was distinctly bullish about his motives and politics during the killing and at his first court appearance. He might have been overwhelmed with what he had done and the reality of the circumstances he found himself in. But his calm demeanour after arrest and during the trial itself makes this unlikely and in any case he wanted to speak before sentence.

It is possible although improbable that Mair decided he would refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the court by failing to either plead or give evidence until he was convicted and then give whatever message he wanted to put before the public . If so he was thwarted by the judge. I can find no media report which either carried details of a protest in court by Mair at being denied an opportunity to speak or of his barrister making representations on his behalf that he should be allowed to speak. It is conceivable that the media collectively decided not to carry details of Mair protesting or his barrister arguing that he should be allowed to speak, but that would surely be stretching credulity past breaking point.

The only really plausible explanations for Mair’s behaviour would seem to be that he is either mentally ill or that he was intimidated by the authorities into not giving evidence.

Mair’s history of mental illness

One of the most surprising things about the case is that no psychiatric evidence was offered in court. This was noteworthy for two reasons. The first was the obvious one that Mair’s behaviour and the nature of the crime itself was such as to make an assessment of his state of mind necessary if justice was to be seen to be done. The second was the fact that Mair had not only received psychiatric treatment in the past for depression but on the day before the killing he attempted unsuccessfully to get help for that condition.

There is plenty of opportunity within the justice system for mental illness to be picked up. The police have powers to order a psychiatric examination of someone they suspect has a mental illness. The question of fitness to plead may be raised before arraignment by the prosecution, defence or Judge. Requesting psychiatric reports after conviction but before sentencing is often done. It is important to understand that an accused cannot simply declare himself or herself as fit to plead.

Despite all these opportunities there was no psychiatric evidence presented to the court. Of course if Mair instructed his lawyers not to bring his mental health issues in court as a defence or mitigation they could not do so if he was considered fit to plead which he was. However, the court itself could have ordered psychiatric reports before sentencing took place and apparently did not do so.

But if Mair instructed to his lawyers not to use his medical history in the case that would make it all the more extraordinary that he failed to either give evidence or to make a public protest when he was being denied an opportunity to speak.

Had his psychiatric history been used at his trial it is possible it could have made a significant difference to the sentence Mair received . The charge could have been reduced to manslaughter if Mears was judged to have diminished responsibility or lead to a sentence of something less than a whole life term.

Intriguingly the Guardian reported that Mair had undergone a psychiatric examination but no evidence of mental illness was found, a rather surprising conclusion because of the nature of the crime, Mair’s behaviour during the attack and the fact that Mair had been treated for depression. However, the Guardian report does not say who commissioned the assessment.

The behaviour of Mair’s barrister

Judged by the media reports Mair’s barrister Simon Russell-Flint QC was virtually inert throughout the trial. He challenged only one minor point of the prosecution’s evidence, did not bring any evidence on behalf of Mair and failed to challenge the judge’s refusal to allow Mair to speak after sentence. H

A barrister’s attempt at explaining Russell-Flint’s behaviour can be found here.

The alternative explanation that state actors have frightened Mair into keeping quiet raises the question what did they have to gain? The British elite are very twitchy about having trials in which those charged with breaches of the totalitarian ideology known as political correctness are unwilling to plead guilty. Moreover, even those who do plead not guilty very rarely rest their defence on the right to free expression seeking instead to blame their behaviour on things such as the side effects of prescription drugs. Often those who start off with a not guilty plea will be gradually worn down by officialdom until they agree to plead guilty. A first rate example of this is the case of Emma West who, after complaining on a tram about the level of immigration, was first held in the UK’s nearest to a maximum security prison for women and, after being given bail , was then harassed for months simply because she would not plead guilty. Eventually worn down by the delay and fearing that her young son might be taken away from her, she pleaded guilty to some lesser charges than those originally laid.

The reason why our politically correct powers-that -be fear a not guilty plea in such cases is they do not want their willingness to suppress free expression attacked or simply made starkly visible in a public forum or for those in the dock to challenge the politically correct view of the world. Part of the politically correct narrative is that political correctness does not impinge on free expression. This is self-evidently absurd, but it is an essential plank in the enforcement of political correctness. For the politically correct to say otherwise would be to undermine their crand show it nakedly for what it is, a totalitarian creed which insists the only acceptable view of anything which political correctness touches is the politically correct one. In principle this means everything important in human existence because the concept of discrimination lays every aspect of life open to intrusion by the ideology. No totalitarian ideology can survive if it is questioned and political correctness is more vulnerable to intellectual demolition than most because it is series of injunctions which conflict horribly with human nature .

It could have been this elite fear of having political correctness challenged which prompted the judge to refuse Mair leave to address the court. Mair’s case was of course very different from those prosecuted for non-pc speech because of his undisputed crime of murder, but the threat of someone calling those with power who supported the UK’s membership traitors, as Mair most probably would have done judged by his previous public statements during the killing and his first court appearance, might have seemed a little too close to home for our politicians in particular to view with equanimity. Treason is a unique crime. Whether it is on the statute book or not, whether it is formally defined one way or another, everyone knows in their heart of hearts what it is, the most heartrending of emotional blows, namely, betrayal.

There was also the possibility of elite fear of what one might call the Anders Breivik effect. If Mair had spoken in court and given a purely political motive for the killing and justified on the grounds that Cox was committing treason this would almost certainly this would have created an ambivalent response amongst the public. The British experience with Irish terrorism are a good example of the tendency where Irish Republicans would often say after a bombing atrocity “I don’t approve of their methods but….” There would have been condemnation of the act of killing of course, but along with that in quite a few minds there would be a sense that Mair’s political reason for the attack, that he was killing a traitor, somehow softened the purely criminal sharpness of the deed. There will also be a hard core of those who were unambiguously glad to see her dead . A piece of research carried out by Birmingham City and Nottingham Trent Universities on tweets about the murder of Cox found that at least 25,000 out of 50,000 tweets studied celebrated her death.

A silent or at least a Mair not allowed to speak publicly is a perfect fit to fill two roles for the UK’s politically correct elite’s narrative. First, he could be typified as the type of person the remain side of the referendum said was the typical leave voter, someone who was ignorant and potentially violent; second he could be pointed at as a “far right” terrorist to balance against the many Muslim terrorists. This has already happened : here are a few example links one, two, three .

There is also the possibility that the security services or the police knew about Mair and did not take any action because they hoped that he might do something which would promote the idea of that those who wanted to leave the EU are dangerous extreme rightwingers . It is conceivable although very improbable , that in some way the security services surreptitiously encouraged Mair to attack Cox to feed into the general propaganda of the pro-EU side of the Brexit referendum that portrayed leavers as racist far right know-nothings. More plausibly the security services might thought that Mair would not do anything more than engage in a public protest or perhaps a bit of criminal damage and they seriously misjudged the situation. It would be very damaging if that was the case and they had been forced to admit such a thing in the witness box.

There are those who believe that state actors or possibly fanatical remainers arranged the killing to play into the remainer propaganda that Breiteers were racist far righters. This is wildly improbable for three reasons. First, the large the number of people who would have to be engaged in such a conspiracy; second, if such a plot existed why would a novice MP with little public profile be selected to die?

Then there is the idea that Cox is not dead and the killing was in fact a sham. Only one question really needs to be asked here, namely, why on Earth would Cox have agreed to taking part in such a plot? The number of people who would have had to be in on the plot would have had to even greater than those in an actually killing arranged by the state or fanatical remainers.

Finally, there is the idea that the man who was convicted as Thomas Mair was not Thomas Mair’ but someone else who is presumably playing a part. This theory can be easily struck down. Photos of Mair when he was younger and as he was when arrested are claimed by supporters of the substitution theory to show two different people. In fact, they do the opposite,. Both photos show a similar growth on the right cheek ; the eye colour is the same, the shape of the distinctive nose is the same, and the hair colour is the same. There is also the fact that if the person who was convicted was not Mair everyone who knew him, including Mair’s relatives, would have had to refrain from pointing this out, an absurd idea.

What is the chance of British elite behaving badly?

What is the chance of the British elite behaving badly. Well, consider the case of the Liberal MP Cyril Smith. Smith admitted to the then leader of the Liberal Party David Steel that when involved with the Cambridge House boys hostel he had both spanked boys with their pants down and conducted what he euphemistically called medical examinations on the boys . Steel took no action and Smith remained within the Party and an MP.

One thing is certain about this case, we have not heard anything like the whole truth about it. We are being asked to believe that a politically motivated killer of his own volition steadfastly failed to use his capture and trial to send a political message to the public. It makes no sense.

The latest Muslim terrorist massacre has been particularly savage. A Tunisian with French citizenship Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel deliberately drove a heavy articulated lorry along a crowded road full of people for more than a mile deliberately killing 84 people including ten children and injuring dozens more. The injuries to many of the dead were so severe that they could not be identified because their faces had been crushed as they went under the wheels of the lorry. The terrorist organisation ISIS has claimed that the attack was in response to their urging of Muslims in the West to attack non-Muslims with any means they could find including motor vehicles.

What can be done to stop such outrages? The brutal truth is that while large numbers of Muslims are in the West nothing much can be done to stop this form of subcontracted terrorism which is of a very different nature from what might be called conventional terrorism. In a conventional terrorist war in a society with a substantial minority (or even an oppressed majority ) from which terrorists are drawn support for terrorism is pyramidal. The troubles in Northern Ireland are a first rate example of such a war. At the top are the planners and executive players. Below them are the bomb makers and armourers. Alongside them are the active terrorists carrying out bombings, shootings etc. Below them come those willing to provide safe houses for people and weapons. Below them come those who can be relied on to demonstrate with a degree of violence at the drop of a hat. Below them come the mass of the minority many of whom say “I don’t approve of their methods but I agree with their ends”. Members of this slyly complicit majority of the minority are also most unlikely to give information to the police about terrorist activity, not least because they will fear violent repercussions. Their passivity and ambivalence provides in Mao’s words “The sea in which the terrorists swim”.

All this interlinking activity provides plenty of opportunity for the security services dealing with such an insurgency to gather intelligence which thwarts planned terrorist acts. Often the intelligence comes into their hands because of the inability of terrorists to keep their plans to themselves, either because they allow themselves to be infiltrated by agents of the state or simply out of vanity. ( Ask any police detective about identifying criminals and they will tell you a large proportion of criminal convictions come from the inability of criminals to resist the temptation to boast about what they are up to). The need to source weapons and munitions is another weakness because that brings in people from outside the terrorist organisation and the number of arms suppliers will be limited and more likely to be identified by security services.

Muslim terrorism in the West is something different. To begin with its practitioners are only too willing to commit suicide. This is rare behaviour amongst conventional terrorists. Members of the Provisional IRA had no such appetite. It is also a very effective form of terrorism and long recognised as such. George IIII said that anyone who was willing to lose their life in an attempt on his life would probably succeed because it was simply impossible to guard against such a determined assassin who would only have to get close enough to stab or shoot him. The suicide attacker also deprives the attacked of any chance of punishing him or her, a substantial psychological benefit.

It is true that some of the circumstances of the conventional terrorist war exists in the war that is now being waged by Islam against the West (Islam is waging war over the globe but I shall not deal with that here, although the same basic problem exists everywhere ). The providing of the “sea in which the terrorists swim”, the at best ambivalent attitude of many Muslims in the West towards Western society and the sense of victimhood which readily excuses any action they take against Western societies are all active, but because of its diffuse and laissez faire nature most of the elements of conventional terrorist war is missing. There may be some outside direction and assistance from the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda but plainly it is possible, as the latest atrocity shows, to cause mayhem if the terrorist is simply an individual who uses as his weapon a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if a would-be terrorist wants to use a bomb or a gun it is not that difficult to find instructions on the Internet to make the first and in many parts of the West getting a gun and plenty of ammunition is not difficult. As to getting training in using weapons, if we believe the media reports and security warnings, there are thousands of radicalised Muslims who have come back to the West after receiving such training and battle experience from places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Lone wolf terrorists or terrorists working in small groups have a wide range of terrorist acts they can choose from and it is unrealistic to expect Western security forces to make much of a dent in the number of attacks by such people.

But even where a plot is more substantial and/or may include foreign direction and consequently leave more possible openings for the security forces to come across the plotters, things are not simple. Political correctness puts up barriers to rigorous investigations. The ready formation of immigrant ghettos make infiltration difficult not least because wannabe terrorists are often of an ethnicity alien to the country in which they are living. This means that if their group is to be infiltrated it can only be by someone sharing their ethnicity and speaking their language. There is not a huge number of such people willing to spy on their own community and even if such people are recruited there is a strong likelihood that a significant number will have joined to get information about the security services, that is, to act as a mole for terrorists.

The last difficulty is the sheer numbers of potential terrorists. To take the UK as an example, there are an estimated 3 million Muslims here. If one in a thousand was a serious terrorist that would be 3,000 serious terrorists; if one in a hundred there would be 30,000. But whatever the numbers of really serious terrorists to do their work meaningfully the security services would have to investigate many more Muslims, perhaps hundreds of thousands, because polls and research often show, for example, alarming numbers of Muslims in the West supporting suicide bombings. These are numbers which are utterly beyond Britain’s security resources (or those of any other country) to identify and monitor.

Why were these very obvious fifth columns allowed to settle in the West? Because of an irrational belief in the potency of human rationality at best and a treasonous hatred of their own societies at worst of the internationalist elites which have dominated in the West during the last 50 years. These elites imagine that human beings are interchangeable and that claims of culture and race count for nothing, that human beings can simply be “educated” into accepting mulgticulturalism. Some actively hated their own societies and wilfully encouraged mass immigration to ensure that their societies were in their words “enriched” by becoming less homogeneous.

The madness is going on with huge numbers of Muslims still being allowed into the West because Western elites cannot break themselves of their addiction to the internationalist fantasy or are terrified of what will happen now such large numbers of Muslims are in the West. In any sane society the permitting of the mass immigration of those who are antagonistic towards the values of the country which is receiving them would be seen for what it is, treason. Sooner or later that is what it will be called.

British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated

Robert Henderson

The desperate attempts of the Remain side to paint those who wish to leave the EU as, at one and the same time, racist and unrepresentative of the British as a whole are ludicrous. Both claims cannot be true because polls show that the numbers wanting to vote to leave are at worst on a par with those who wish to leave.

Polls and research on immigration to the UK invariably give a majority against future mass immigration despite the strong incentive of those canvassed for their opinion to give either the politically correct answer for fear of being called a racist or to look for what they consider is a safe proxy for saying they want an end to mass immigration or at least see a severe reduction in numbers. The proxies they choose are statements made by mainstream politicians which are deemed safe to repeat simply because they have been sanctioned by their use by politicians. This leads people to say things such as “It is alright provided they work and pay their way” or “We should have a points systems like Australia”. This of course does not address express the real wishes of most of the British public , but those making such statements feel they dare not get nearer to the truth of what they feel because that is the limit of what is permitted by the politically correct elite.

What are the real feelings about immigration of the British? They are far more antagonistic to it than politicians or the mainstream media allow. In 2014 the think-tank British Future published the report How to talk about immigration based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. This purports to provide a blueprint for both the pros and antis in the immigration debate to manage the subject most effectively in public discussion. This is not something which they achieve because they have bought into the internationalist agenda, viz: “Some three or four generations on from Windrush, it is now a settled and irreversible fact that we are a multi-ethnic society. Managing immigration effectively and fairly in the public interest should and does matter to Britons from different ethnic backgrounds. We should be suspicious of approaches that sharply polarise British citizens along racial lines, in whatever direction”.

Nonetheless the research does have much of interest. One finding is truly startling. Faced with the question “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally” the result was Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report). In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of falling foul of the pc police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is stunning. Moreover, because political correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report). The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

That only 14% support such a policy compared to the 25% who wished for forced repatriation is striking in itself, but it is even better for the opponents of immigration than it looks for two reasons. First, the 14% of those who agreed with the question will be the honest figure because to say that you want open borders carries with it no penalties from the pc police and will gain the person brownie points amongst the politically correct elite and their auxiliaries. Second, as already mentioned, the 25% of those wanting forced repatriation of all immigrants will understate the true position because a significant proportion of those questioned with be lying out of fear.

The report also shows that older voters are more likely to be those who are most strongly opposed to immigration (P11 of the report). That is important because older voters are the most likely to vote.

Taking all that into account it is reasonable to assume that a referendum with the question “Do you wish to end mass immigration?” would result in a solid probably an overwhelming YES vote.

These facts should persuade politicians that they would risk nothing if they move much further to restrict immigration than they have already done and in so doing that they would gain considerable extra electoral support.

This may well happen. Public rhetoric about immigration is rapidly hardening There will come a tipping point where the rhetoric has departed so far from the politically correct position that serious action to restrict immigration will occur because the stretch between rhetoric and action will become too great to sustain in a society where governments are elected.

A party political bidding process on the subject of immigration is already taking place and there will come a point where serious action has to follow or there will be a very real chance that either one or more of the mainstream parties will become irrelevant and be superseded, or members of the mainstream parties will wrest control of these parties from their pc indoctrinated leadership and adopt a policy on immigration closer to what the public wants.

The other important effect of greater political honesty in political utterances about immigration is that it makes it much easier for people generally to speak openly about their feelings on the subject and to lobby for radical action. In turn this will feed the desire of politicians to gain electoral credibility by being ever former in their immigration policies. Indeed, the only reason that the present immigration has been allowed to develop is because the subject has been effectively wiped off the public debate agenda since the1970s.

In the immediate context of the EU referendum those supporting the leave campaign should have no fear or embarrassment in making clear that after the question of sovereignty – from which all else flows – that the most important issue is immigration. That is what will win the referendum for the leave side.